Abstract
Abstract Introduction Restoration in drylands is challenging because of harsh climates, requiring creative methods and organisms like biocrusts for restoration of degraded lands. Biocrusts are thin, coherent soil surface layers prevalent in drylands, engineered, and inhabited by communities of organisms including mosses, lichens, and cyanobacteria. Objectives Biocrusts are critical to dryland ecosystem recovery, enhancing soil stability and fertility, capturing dust, and sometimes enhancing native plant establishment. We tested the efficacy of biocrust capsules—a novel, cost‐effective biocrust delivery method using commercially available pill capsules filled with biocrust inoculum—as a method for biocrust restoration in four experiments. Methods We evaluated the compatibility of multiple capsule types with: field‐collected and cultivated biocrusts from different sources (Sonoran, Mojave and Sonoran cultivated), native seeds, anti‐herbivory agents (diatomaceous Earth alone and with: habanero powder, coyote urine, pectin, or bergamot oil), and water‐holding additives (activated charcoal and hydrogel, alone or together) in four experiments. We watered by hand in the greenhouse, monitoring breakdown rate, biocrust activity, and seed germination. Results Biocrust capsule types broke down at different rates. Tapioca and vegetable cellulose types were compatible with all biocrust sources, including cultivated inoculum. Capsule breakdown and biocrust activity varied by biocrust source and capsule material. Capsules did not inhibit native seed germination. Anti‐herbivory additives had little effect on herbivory, suggesting that encapsulated biocrusts may not be appealing to some herbivores. Conclusions Biocrust capsules show significant promise as a scalable, practical method for biocrust distribution.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-nc-nd. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 6
Claim · model-written summary
Capsule types broke down at different rates.
Verbatim
t0“native plant”
e0“Biocrust capsule types broke down at different rates”
Claim · model-written summary
Tapioca and vegetable cellulose capsules were compatible with all biocrust sources.
Verbatim
t0“native plant”
e0“Tapioca and vegetable cellulose types were compatible with all biocrust sources, including cultivated inoculum”
Claim · model-written summary
Capsule breakdown and biocrust activity varied by source and capsule material.
Verbatim
t0“native plant”
e0“Capsule breakdown and biocrust activity varied by biocrust source and capsule material”
Claim · model-written summary
Capsules did not inhibit native seed germination.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Capsules did not inhibit native seed germination”
Claim · model-written summary
Anti-herbivory additives had little effect on herbivory.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
t0“native plant”
e0“Anti‐herbivory additives had little effect on herbivory”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors concluded that biocrust capsules show significant promise for scalable distribution.
Verbatim
t0“native plant”
e0“Biocrust capsules show significant promise as a scalable, practical method for biocrust distribution”